Anyone else notice that the Neo Cons have been qouting Clinton a lot ?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Would it be too much to ask for you guys to just quote what you are replying to? Are these mutltiple nested quotes really needed for a one sentence response?

Thanks.

:beer:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
it don't mean nuthin....IT DON'T MEAN NUTHIN....it don't mean nuthing...IT DON'T MEAN NUTHING-NUTHIN-NUTHIN!!!!
/partial libbie rant

CkG

Explain yourself please?

Oops - replace "mean" with "say". Now do you understand?

CkG

No I don't. Why is Clinton suddenly relevant, trustworthy, wise, whatever. When in every other situation he isn't?

Maybe because he made a speech and relied on the same intel agency the current president relied. HIs intel was never questioned. The point seems obvious, but the liberals tend tomiss it for some reason.

"His" Intelligence was fresh. In another post you brought up days worth of bombings after Clintons statement based on his fresh Intel. If you recall, those bombing strikes were based off that fresh Intel. Don't you think that after the bombing that the Intel was no longer reliable? That perhaps knowns had been successfully destroyed?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
it don't mean nuthin....IT DON'T MEAN NUTHIN....it don't mean nuthing...IT DON'T MEAN NUTHING-NUTHIN-NUTHIN!!!!
/partial libbie rant

CkG

Explain yourself please?

Oops - replace "mean" with "say". Now do you understand?

CkG

No I don't. Why is Clinton suddenly relevant, trustworthy, wise, whatever. When in every other situation he isn't?

Maybe because he made a speech and relied on the same intel agency the current president relied. HIs intel was never questioned. The point seems obvious, but the liberals tend tomiss it for some reason.

"His" Intelligence was fresh. In another post you brought up days worth of bombings after Clintons statement based on his fresh Intel. If you recall, those bombing strikes were based off that fresh Intel. Don't you think that after the bombing that the Intel was no longer reliable? That perhaps knowns had been successfully destroyed?

So our CIA went to sleep after 1998 when dealing with iraq? You seem to be making that case.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
it don't mean nuthin....IT DON'T MEAN NUTHIN....it don't mean nuthing...IT DON'T MEAN NUTHING-NUTHIN-NUTHIN!!!!
/partial libbie rant

CkG

Explain yourself please?

Oops - replace "mean" with "say". Now do you understand?

CkG

No I don't. Why is Clinton suddenly relevant, trustworthy, wise, whatever. When in every other situation he isn't?

Maybe because he made a speech and relied on the same intel agency the current president relied. HIs intel was never questioned. The point seems obvious, but the liberals tend tomiss it for some reason.

"His" Intelligence was fresh. In another post you brought up days worth of bombings after Clintons statement based on his fresh Intel. If you recall, those bombing strikes were based off that fresh Intel. Don't you think that after the bombing that the Intel was no longer reliable? That perhaps knowns had been successfully destroyed?

So our CIA went to sleep after 1998 when dealing with iraq? You seem to be making that case.

Are

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
it don't mean nuthin....IT DON'T MEAN NUTHIN....it don't mean nuthing...IT DON'T MEAN NUTHING-NUTHIN-NUTHIN!!!!
/partial libbie rant

CkG

Explain yourself please?

Oops - replace "mean" with "say". Now do you understand?

CkG

No I don't. Why is Clinton suddenly relevant, trustworthy, wise, whatever. When in every other situation he isn't?

Maybe because he made a speech and relied on the same intel agency the current president relied. HIs intel was never questioned. The point seems obvious, but the liberals tend tomiss it for some reason.

"His" Intelligence was fresh. In another post you brought up days worth of bombings after Clintons statement based on his fresh Intel. If you recall, those bombing strikes were based off that fresh Intel. Don't you think that after the bombing that the Intel was no longer reliable? That perhaps knowns had been successfully destroyed?

So our CIA went to sleep after 1998 when dealing with iraq? You seem to be making that case.

Are

you

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
it don't mean nuthin....IT DON'T MEAN NUTHIN....it don't mean nuthing...IT DON'T MEAN NUTHING-NUTHIN-NUTHIN!!!!
/partial libbie rant

CkG

Explain yourself please?

Oops - replace "mean" with "say". Now do you understand?

CkG

No I don't. Why is Clinton suddenly relevant, trustworthy, wise, whatever. When in every other situation he isn't?

Maybe because he made a speech and relied on the same intel agency the current president relied. HIs intel was never questioned. The point seems obvious, but the liberals tend tomiss it for some reason.

"His" Intelligence was fresh. In another post you brought up days worth of bombings after Clintons statement based on his fresh Intel. If you recall, those bombing strikes were based off that fresh Intel. Don't you think that after the bombing that the Intel was no longer reliable? That perhaps knowns had been successfully destroyed?

So our CIA went to sleep after 1998 when dealing with iraq? You seem to be making that case.

Are

you

sure

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
it don't mean nuthin....IT DON'T MEAN NUTHIN....it don't mean nuthing...IT DON'T MEAN NUTHING-NUTHIN-NUTHIN!!!!
/partial libbie rant

CkG

Explain yourself please?

Oops - replace "mean" with "say". Now do you understand?

CkG

No I don't. Why is Clinton suddenly relevant, trustworthy, wise, whatever. When in every other situation he isn't?

Maybe because he made a speech and relied on the same intel agency the current president relied. HIs intel was never questioned. The point seems obvious, but the liberals tend tomiss it for some reason.

"His" Intelligence was fresh. In another post you brought up days worth of bombings after Clintons statement based on his fresh Intel. If you recall, those bombing strikes were based off that fresh Intel. Don't you think that after the bombing that the Intel was no longer reliable? That perhaps knowns had been successfully destroyed?

So our CIA went to sleep after 1998 when dealing with iraq? You seem to be making that case.

Are

you

sure

he is?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
it don't mean nuthin....IT DON'T MEAN NUTHIN....it don't mean nuthing...IT DON'T MEAN NUTHING-NUTHIN-NUTHIN!!!!
/partial libbie rant

CkG

Explain yourself please?

Oops - replace "mean" with "say". Now do you understand?

CkG

No I don't. Why is Clinton suddenly relevant, trustworthy, wise, whatever. When in every other situation he isn't?

Maybe because he made a speech and relied on the same intel agency the current president relied. HIs intel was never questioned. The point seems obvious, but the liberals tend tomiss it for some reason.

"His" Intelligence was fresh. In another post you brought up days worth of bombings after Clintons statement based on his fresh Intel. If you recall, those bombing strikes were based off that fresh Intel. Don't you think that after the bombing that the Intel was no longer reliable? That perhaps knowns had been successfully destroyed?

So our CIA went to sleep after 1998 when dealing with iraq? You seem to be making that case.

Did the CIA have access? This doesn't even matter, since the thread is trying to justify Bush's actions based on the same Intel that Clinton used. Intel that was 5 years old.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
it don't mean nuthin....IT DON'T MEAN NUTHIN....it don't mean nuthing...IT DON'T MEAN NUTHING-NUTHIN-NUTHIN!!!!
/partial libbie rant

CkG

Explain yourself please?

Oops - replace "mean" with "say". Now do you understand?

CkG

No I don't. Why is Clinton suddenly relevant, trustworthy, wise, whatever. When in every other situation he isn't?

Maybe because he made a speech and relied on the same intel agency the current president relied. HIs intel was never questioned. The point seems obvious, but the liberals tend tomiss it for some reason.

"His" Intelligence was fresh. In another post you brought up days worth of bombings after Clintons statement based on his fresh Intel. If you recall, those bombing strikes were based off that fresh Intel. Don't you think that after the bombing that the Intel was no longer reliable? That perhaps knowns had been successfully destroyed?

So our CIA went to sleep after 1998 when dealing with iraq? You seem to be making that case.

Did the CIA have access? This doesn't even matter, since the thread is trying to justify Bush's actions based on the same Intel that Clinton used. Intel that was 5 years old.

Did the CIA have access before 1998? You are being stupid now.

 

[Insane3D]

Did the CIA have access before 1998? You are being stupid now.

Well, thank goodness we have you in here keeping the intelligence (no pun intended) level of this thread high by offsetting the stupid people...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
it don't mean nuthin....IT DON'T MEAN NUTHIN....it don't mean nuthing...IT DON'T MEAN NUTHING-NUTHIN-NUTHIN!!!!
/partial libbie rant

CkG

Explain yourself please?

Oops - replace "mean" with "say". Now do you understand?

CkG

No I don't. Why is Clinton suddenly relevant, trustworthy, wise, whatever. When in every other situation he isn't?

Maybe because he made a speech and relied on the same intel agency the current president relied. HIs intel was never questioned. The point seems obvious, but the liberals tend tomiss it for some reason.

"His" Intelligence was fresh. In another post you brought up days worth of bombings after Clintons statement based on his fresh Intel. If you recall, those bombing strikes were based off that fresh Intel. Don't you think that after the bombing that the Intel was no longer reliable? That perhaps knowns had been successfully destroyed?

So our CIA went to sleep after 1998 when dealing with iraq? You seem to be making that case.

Did the CIA have access? This doesn't even matter, since the thread is trying to justify Bush's actions based on the same Intel that Clinton used. Intel that was 5 years old.

Did the CIA have access before 1998? You are being stupid now.

No, I am not. It is well known that the CIA was receiving Intel from UN Inspectors.

 

[DealMonkey]

They're quoting Clinton a lot because they're trying to bridge the gap -- See? Your guy did it too and believed the same crappy intel, so it's OK right? It's a pathetic attempt to reach across the aisle, because in the final analysis, two wrongs don't make a right. What Clinton thought or believed or said has nothing to do with the current situation other than the fact that our intel regarding Iraq has been pure crap since the mid 90s. We didn't know anymore about what Iraq was *really* up to any more than we know where OBL is now. Only Bush started a pre-emptive war over what amounts to pure speculation about Iraq. Whether he knew the quality of the intel was pure crap when making his case remains to be seen, however I don't see any reason why it would suddenly get any better than it was back in the 90s.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
it don't mean nuthin....IT DON'T MEAN NUTHIN....it don't mean nuthing...IT DON'T MEAN NUTHING-NUTHIN-NUTHIN!!!!
/partial libbie rant

CkG

Explain yourself please?

Oops - replace "mean" with "say". Now do you understand?

CkG

No I don't. Why is Clinton suddenly relevant, trustworthy, wise, whatever. When in every other situation he isn't?

Maybe because he made a speech and relied on the same intel agency the current president relied. HIs intel was never questioned. The point seems obvious, but the liberals tend tomiss it for some reason.

Clinton made a speech. Wow...that is momentous. Just as momentous and grave in its implications as a pre-emptive war??? Give me a break.

I am not questioning the intel per say. I have no access to the intel and it is impossible to tell if someone lied, no matter what Dave says. I am questioning the actions of this administration based on this intel and the way they went about it.

And then bombed iraq for 4 days. I guess it is ok to say these things as long as you dont put boots on the ground and remove the problem for good. Even Clinton is on record saying he does not know if those 4 days of bombing got rid of what they were trying to bomb.

Actually some in the intelligence field have said, that those bombings by Clinton eliminated most of the stockpile of WMDs.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Clinton who in the neo-cons opinion is a lying

First, I am not a neo-con....i am a conservative.
A Neo-conservative is someone who has been 'Mugged by Reality'
The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. The neocons, in the famous formulation of one of their leaders, Irving Kristol, were "liberals mugged by reality."
You need to get your facts right...all neo-cons are conservatives, not all conservatives are neo-cons.

Second, you once again use that old liberal tactic of making up the "truth"..it is not an "opinion" on neo-cons that Clinton lied, it is fact which lead to his disbarment
"The Southeastern Legal Foundation and U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright referred the Clinton case to the court's committee on professional conduct, saying the president lied under oath"

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Clinton who in the neo-cons opinion is a lying

First, I am not a neo-con....i am a conservative.
A Neo-conservative is someone who has been 'Mugged by Reality'
The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. The neocons, in the famous formulation of one of their leaders, Irving Kristol, were "liberals mugged by reality."
You need to get your facts right...all neo-cons are conservatives, not all conservatives are neo-cons.

Good luck trying to get that across. It's like trying to explain to a little kid the difference between a liberal and a socialist.

 

[DealMonkey]

Neoconservative

One who follows the "neo-con" subsect of the American conservative political wing. A Neo Conservative generally favors hawkish foreign agendas and overt militarization due to their core purpose of promoting American supremacy overseas and their disgustingly retarded and simplistic belief that any given situation can be resolved with aggression (see: Iraq). Due to their unabashed shortsightedness, they are considered ignorant buffoons by other conservatives. Especially so by the paleoconservatives.

When it comes to domestic affairs, however, Neo Conservatives aren't nearly as decisive. In fact, they're totally impotent and ineffectual.

Gee, I guess that's why our economy is in the sh!tter and the rest of the world hates us... We have a neo-conservative dickhead in the White House.

Nice.

 

[heartsurgeon]

We have a neo-conservative dickhead in the White House.

Like so many liberal posters on this forum, you need some remedial reading lessons. Pres. Bush is not a neo-con, he is a conservative. read the previous post (a dictionary will help with the big words). As for the dickhead comment, shame on you, your mother should restrict your internet privileges for a week.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So, Clinton got it wrong, and launched a minor attack.

Bush got it wrong, and launched a major war and occupation, and the fact that Clinton got it wrong makes Bush right?

so deposing a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people is "wrong"?

from the start bush said WMD was not the only reason for going into iraq, many seem to forget that, there is a war on terror and those that support it...

saddam made monetary contributions to the families of palestinian suicide bombers at first $10,000 then $25,000

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So, Clinton got it wrong, and launched a minor attack.

Bush got it wrong, and launched a major war and occupation, and the fact that Clinton got it wrong makes Bush right?

so deposing a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people is "wrong"?

from the start bush said WMD was not the only reason for going into iraq, many seem to forget that, there is a war on terror and those that support it...

saddam made monetary contributions to the families of palestinian suicide bombers at first $10,000 then $25,000

So why didn't the Israelis invade him?

 

[nutxo]

Lberal


liberal


(1)a person who harbors anger and resentment towards himself, his family and his country, (2)a person who believes in group rights as opposed to individual rights, (3) a person who is was raised in a family where the female was the dominant figure, (4) male liberals are usually slight in stature, wear beards and walk behind their female partners or dominant males partner, if gay, (4) people who are over represented in mental health facilities and subsequently over use depression medication ? while abhorring the pharmaceutical companies that make them, (5) female liberals are usually short, fat, and wear stupid hats with slogans on them, (6) elderly liberals are annoying. They are frequently bitter, nasty and resentful; they have spent their entire time on this earth fighting against competition and the free market. In the end, having achieved nothing and while aborting all their children, they die lonely, never really extinguishing the fire of anguish and the intolerable resentment that has lived inside them.

Liberals are not only different philosophically, the are different pathologically. They are just plain old creepy looking.

I can quote urban dictionary as well. I tend to ignore the place.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

We have a neo-conservative dickhead in the White House.

Like so many liberal posters on this forum, you need some remedial reading lessons. Pres. Bush is not a neo-con, he is a conservative. read the previous post (a dictionary will help with the big words). As for the dickhead comment, shame on you, your mother should restrict your internet privileges for a week.

Do tell me what is so conservative about Bush?

Smaller federal government in
1. Size? Nope, EVERY government agency has increased in size since his election.
2. Spending? Nope, we have that rediculously huge and ever-expanding deficit.
3. Legal authority? Nope, two words: Patriot Act.
The top three ideals of conservatism and Bush fails every one. Plus you have him seeding to courts to push his religious ideals, suspension of American citizens' rights, continuing the socialization of our schools, the list is really endless. Name, one, just ONE thing this man has done while in office that doesn't directly oppose truely conservative ideals. Bush wears a lot of hats: neo-con, fascist, liberal, but he hasn't put on his conservative hat since his campaign in 2000.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So, Clinton got it wrong, and launched a minor attack.

Bush got it wrong, and launched a major war and occupation, and the fact that Clinton got it wrong makes Bush right?

so deposing a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people is "wrong"?

from the start bush said WMD was not the only reason for going into iraq, many seem to forget that, there is a war on terror and those that support it...

saddam made monetary contributions to the families of palestinian suicide bombers at first $10,000 then $25,000

And we put Pinochet in power, and the Shah, and kept Saddam in power. Don't bring that high moral horse you ride around here. It's lame. You need to advocate the overthrow of the US govt if that is your attitude. We have our share of blood on our hands.

We allowed those the hundreds of thousands of deaths to happen because we wanted to play Iran off against Iraq. If we were back in those days now, you would have been justifying it. In best interest of the world don't you know. Rumsfeld shook the hand of the devil and he knew it.

This wasnt about liberation. This was Operation Get Saddam. This was a power trip with revenge thrown in.

When do we go to war with China? Russia?

Who do we direct your sense of justice next? Who do we kill to liberate?

You are too eager to spill blood. Well I have had a bellyfull of it in my lifetime, and I wish the damn idiots who are so eager to start a war had the golden opportunity to be attacked themselves. War is easy, peace is hard. The US took the easy way out to make it's international dick seem bigger after 9/11.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
So, Clinton got it wrong, and launched a minor attack.

Bush got it wrong, and launched a major war and occupation, and the fact that Clinton got it wrong makes Bush right?

so deposing a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people is "wrong"?

from the start bush said WMD was not the only reason for going into iraq, many seem to forget that, there is a war on terror and those that support it...

saddam made monetary contributions to the families of palestinian suicide bombers at first $10,000 then $25,000

So why didn't the Israelis invade him?

good question! even though it does not deal with the issues of saddam being s surporter of terrorists...

israel has a long history of kicking the @$$ of every other middle eastern country that screws with them. they could do a good job.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
And we put Pinochet in power, and the Shah, and kept Saddam in power. Don't bring that high moral horse you ride around here. It's lame. You need to advocate the overthrow of the US govt if that is your attitude. We have our share of blood on our hands.

We allowed those the hundreds of thousands of deaths to happen because we wanted to play Iran off against Iraq. If we were back in those days now, you would have been justifying it. In best interest of the world don't you know. Rumsfeld shook the hand of the devil and he knew it.

he did ?he had a magical crystal ball that told him everything saddam would do? WOW!

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith This wasnt about liberation. This was Operation Get Saddam. This was a power trip with revenge thrown in.

When do we go to war with China? Russia?

Who do we direct your sense of justice next? Who do we kill to liberate?

You are too eager to spill blood. Well I have had a bellyfull of it in my lifetime, and I wish the damn idiots who are so eager to start a war had the golden opportunity to be attacked themselves. War is easy, peace is hard. The US took the easy way out to make it's international dick seem bigger after 9/11.

ahhh so i am just eager to spill blood? ROFL!!! war is easy? it was never easy when i served...peace is hard? what makes it so hard? the fact that 12 years of diplomacy and sanction were not working, should we have said "purty pleez mr saddamy"? that one more magical time? while the people starved and were executed?

tell me have you ever served in the armed forces? is so with what unit in what theatre? if not, then how the %@$^ would you know war is "easy"? i ahve family and friends serving in iraq right now, the are proud to be there despite trash back at home that can only shoot off thier mouths about crap they really have nop first hand clue about.

 

[Zephyr106]

Lberal


liberal


(1)a person who harbors anger and resentment towards himself, his family and his country, (2)a person who believes in group rights as opposed to individual rights, (3) a person who is was raised in a family where the female was the dominant figure, (4) male liberals are usually slight in stature, wear beards and walk behind their female partners or dominant males partner, if gay, (4) people who are over represented in mental health facilities and subsequently over use depression medication ? while abhorring the pharmaceutical companies that make them, (5) female liberals are usually short, fat, and wear stupid hats with slogans on them, (6) elderly liberals are annoying. They are frequently bitter, nasty and resentful; they have spent their entire time on this earth fighting against competition and the free market. In the end, having achieved nothing and while aborting all their children, they die lonely, never really extinguishing the fire of anguish and the intolerable resentment that has lived inside them.

Liberals are not only different philosophically, the are different pathologically. They are just plain old creepy looking.

I can quote urban dictionary as well. I tend to ignore the place.

Nuxto has alot of anger and hate. He needs to take it out by shooting up a school.

Zephyr